Hermeneutics - How can we understand the Bible?

[aggie03]

I had mentioned this in another thread, and thought that it was a good idea to start another thread on the subject. We will never agree on whether or not we should use mechanical instruments, have women preaching or {insert choice topic here} unless we all agree on how we can read and understand the Bible.

I look forward to hearing what other people have to say about the topic; this is something that I have wanted to study for a long time. I would ask however, that assertions be kept to the minimum. I understand that there are some very intelligent people here, but I am not interested in knowing how you think we should study the Bible. I am intersted in learning, through the Scriptures, what God expects us to be able to glean from his word.

That may sound strange, but I don't think that people have changed much over time in regard to their ability to reason from the Scriptures. If God expects us to use the CENC (command, example, necessary consequence) type of reasoning, then I would contend that those things should be found in the Scriptures. If there are other ways that we are expected to understand the things that God has given us, those should be in the Scriptures as well.

Anyone can take the Bible and make it say anything that they want - I am interested in being able to use the Bible to understand what God wants I am sure that everyone here has the same desire, so I look forward to this being a excellent and prodcutive study of the Scriptures.

 

[SoulFly51]

I believe when we're studying the Bible, we should first try to understand what the passage in question meant to the first century Christians, and how it applied to them. Then we must figure out what the underlying meaning of the passage is. The next step is finding out how this meaning applies today, because it may look different today than it did back then.

Although the meaning of a passage never changes, the application of a passage can change with the passing of time or from culture to culture.

For instance, consider 1 Thessalonians 5:26 - "Greet all the brothers with a holy kiss."

What did the application of this passage look like in the first century? It meant just what it said - greet one another with a holy kiss.

With that in mind, it would be kind of weird to try this in our culture today.

So what's the underlying meaning behind the verse? I believe Paul was instructing the Christians to greet one another warmly.

How does that apply today? Give someone a hug, shake their hand, tell them hello, sincerely let them know you're happy to see them - it doesn't necassarily mean we should go around kissing everyone we come across. That doesn't translate well to our culture.

Again - what does it say, how did it apply then, what does it mean, and how does it apply today. That's the process I use.

 

[lady06]

Understanding the Bible is a gift. The sacred content of the
'Holy' bible is opened only to those who meet certain criteria.

Lists of basic criteria :-
#1 Believe that Jesus Christ who is Son of God, the only Savior of mankind, who died to save us.
#2 Believe in the Holy Trinity -- God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.
#3 Believe that the Holy Bible is the Word of God, from God, Himself. Everything in the Holy Bible is the truth and nothing but the truth. A most reliable version is the KJV.
#4 The sincere yearning to gain the knowledge of God because it is HIS will. HE will, therefore, impart His Holy Spirit to whosoever yearns to learn about HIM.

God bless the reader!

 

[aggie03]

Understanding the Bible is a gift. The sacred content of the
'Holy' bible is opened only to those who meet certain criteria.

Lists of basic criteria :-
#1 Believe that Jesus Christ who is Son of God, the only Savior of mankind, who died to save us.
#2 Believe in the Holy Trinity -- God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.
#3 Believe that the Holy Bible is the Word of God, from God, Himself. Everything in the Holy Bible is the truth and nothing but the truth. A most reliable version is the KJV.
#4 The sincere yearning to gain the knowledge of God because it is HIS will. HE will, therefore, impart His Holy Spirit to whosoever yearns to learn about HIM.

God bless the reader!

Are you claiming that people who become Christians gain a special understanding? Since when did believeing in the trinity becomes a prerequisite to understand what the Bible says? How would you ever learn that there was a trinity if this is the case?

 

[- DRA -]

I believe when we're studying the Bible, we should first try to understand what the passage in question meant to the first century Christians, and how it applied to them. Then we must figure out what the underlying meaning of the passage is. The next step is finding out how this meaning applies today, because it may look different today than it did back then.

Although the meaning of a passage never changes, the application of a passage can change with the passing of time or from culture to culture.

For instance, consider 1 Thessalonians 5:26 - "Greet all the brothers with a holy kiss."

What did the application of this passage look like in the first century? It meant just what it said - greet one another with a holy kiss.

With that in mind, it would be kind of weird to try this in our culture today.

So what's the underlying meaning behind the verse? I believe Paul was instructing the Christians to greet one another warmly.

How does that apply today? Give someone a hug, shake their hand, tell them hello, sincerely let them know you're happy to see them - it doesn't necassarily mean we should go around kissing everyone we come across. That doesn't translate well to our culture.

Again - what does it say, how did it apply then, what does it mean, and how does it apply today. That's the process I use.

Excellent points.

Like you, I see the "holy kiss" greeting as a contrast to the "unholy kiss" that Judas gave Jesus when he betrayed Him. Also, it is my understanding that the first-century kiss was strictly between members of the same sex ... men greeted other men with a kiss, and women greeted women with a kiss.

Another example is the command to tarry in Jerusalem i.e. Luke 24:49. We need to consider whom the command was given to, why it was given, and if it applies to us today before packing up and heading off to Israel.

Neither example is given as an excuse for not obeying God, but simply to say that all reverence must be given to God and obedience to His will ... and that obedience must be coupled with knowledge. After all, without proper knowledge, 1 Thessalonians 5:17 ("Pray without ceasing") becomes an impossible task.

 

[- DRA -]

Understanding the Bible is a gift. The sacred content of the
'Holy' bible is opened only to those who meet certain criteria.

Lists of basic criteria :-
#1 Believe that Jesus Christ who is Son of God, the only Savior of mankind, who died to save us.
#2 Believe in the Holy Trinity -- God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.
#3 Believe that the Holy Bible is the Word of God, from God, Himself. Everything in the Holy Bible is the truth and nothing but the truth. A most reliable version is the KJV.
#4 The sincere yearning to gain the knowledge of God because it is HIS will. HE will, therefore, impart His Holy Spirit to whosoever yearns to learn about HIM.

God bless the reader!

Consider John 16:7-14. Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit to the apostles, and the blessings He would bring to them are listed. Note verse 8. One aspect was that He would convict the world of sin.

Consider Acts chapter 2. In accordance to Jesus' promise, the Holy Spirit comes upon the apostles. Peter (under the direct influence of the Holy Spirit) preaches a sermon that proclaims Jesus to be both Lord and Christ (verse 36). Some of the Jews are convicted of their sin, and ask what they should do (verse 37). The question at this point is: Who convicted the Jews of their sin? Was it Peter, or was it the Holy Spirit working through Peter as Jesus promised in John 16? It was the Holy Spirit. Thus, we see an example of the Holy Spirit at work helping people understand the will of God. He worked through the word that was preached to convict them of sin.

Also, later in the book of Acts (Acts 17:10-11), the Bereans were commended for their willingness to receive the gospel of Christ and their study to ensure that it was in accordance with the O.T. Scriptures.

Thus, we have two N.T. examples of those who hungered and thirsted after righteousness and were filled (Matthew 5:6).

 

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

Understanding the Bible is a gift. The sacred content of the
'Holy' bible is opened only to those who meet certain criteria.

Lists of basic criteria :-
#1 Believe that Jesus Christ who is Son of God, the only Savior of mankind, who died to save us.
#2 Believe in the Holy Trinity -- God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.
#3 Believe that the Holy Bible is the Word of God, from God, Himself. Everything in the Holy Bible is the truth and nothing but the truth. A most reliable version is the KJV.
#4 The sincere yearning to gain the knowledge of God because it is HIS will. HE will, therefore, impart His Holy Spirit to whosoever yearns to learn about HIM.

God bless the reader!

I know this might be nitpicky but in #3 you reference the Bible as the Word of God. It is not the Word of God. It is the word of God. The only Word is Christ as shown in John 1.

John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Many people use Word to reference scripture and it is incorrect. It is not a minor point as anyone outside looking in would see that as elevating the Bible to being equal with God himself and it is not. The Word is Christ and the word of God is scripture. Some denominations do elevate scripture to a level bordering on bibliolatry and we must avoid that at all cost.

Also the NIV and NASB are more reliable translations than the KJV. They are taken from older texts and with better knowledge of the Greek used in the original texts. The KJV is a good translation but for study I would highly reccomend the more accurate NASB but for preaching I would use the NIV as it is easier to comprehend.

 

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

I would say that accepting scripture as inerrant and the word of God communicated to man through man is an important starting point. We must realize that according to scripture His thoughts are not out thoughts and His ways are not our ways (Isa 55:8-9) and hence there will be things we must accept regardless of our take on the issue.

I would also highly reccomend a historical look at the times so that we can understand things that are confusing to us. Wes gave a good example in the holy kiss. If we do not understand the times we cannot understand the commands. We do not try and explain away scripture but rather understand it fully.

A good Greek lexicon and a Strong's are invaluable tools for Biblical study. I would say that a basic course in Koine Greek would hurt no-one at all and give an even deeper understanding of scripture.

Those are the basics, at least in my opinion, of where we start study.

 

[notreligus]

I know this might be nitpicky but in #3 you reference the Bible as the Word of God. It is not the Word of God. It is the word of God. The only Word is Christ as shown in John 1.

John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Many people use Word to reference scripture and it is incorrect. It is not a minor point as anyone outside looking in would see that as elevating the Bible to being equal with God himself and it is not. The Word is Christ and the word of God is scripture. Some denominations do elevate scripture to a level bordering on bibliolatry and we must avoid that at all cost.

Also the NIV and NASB are more reliable translations than the KJV. They are taken from older texts and with better knowledge of the Greek used in the original texts. The KJV is a good translation but for study I would highly reccomend the more accurate NASB but for preaching I would use the NIV as it is easier to comprehend.

I would ask you to consider the following:

Heb 4:12 For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.
Heb 4:13 And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are open and laid bare to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do.

In this Hebrews passage it is hard to deny the obvious comparison of the Bible, God's written word, to Christ, the Living Word. This does not make the Bible an object of worship. We still are to worship the Author. And, the Bible does not share position in the Trinity (also obvious).​

Many folks, including myself, always capitalize the Word, in reference to Christ or the Bible. I also capitalize this word, Scripture, as I noted you do not. I capitalize that because it is a reference to God's Word or the Bible. However, I am not nitpicking you. This is a forum and lots of typos can be found here. A typo error is not a sin.​

 

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

I would ask you to consider the following:

Heb 4:12 For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.
Heb 4:13 And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are open and laid bare to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do.

In this Hebrews passage it is hard to deny the obvious comparison of the Bible, God's written word, to Christ, the Living Word. This does not make the Bible an object of worship. We still are to worship the Author. And, the Bible does not share position in the Trinity (also obvious).​

Many folks, including myself, always capitalize the Word, in reference to Christ or the Bible. I also capitalize this word, Scripture, as I noted you do not. I capitalize that because it is a reference to God's Word or the Bible. However, I am not nitpicking you. This is a forum and lots of typos can be found here. A typo error is not a sin.​

Even in scripture, as you quoted, word is not capitalized. It is important to understand why. As I pointed out there are people, even here of CF, that elevate scripture to be equal the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and that is heresy. It is a grammatical error to capitalize scripture as it is not a proper noun whereas Bible is a proper noun and should be capitalized. When refering to Christ "Word" is a proper noun but God's word in reference to scripture is not. These simple obervances can insure people do not get the impression that the RM worship scripture in any manner.

 

[- DRA -]

I know this might be nitpicky but in #3 you reference the Bible as the Word of God. It is not the Word of God. It is the word of God. The only Word is Christ as shown in John 1.

John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Jesus is the Word [logos] according to John 1:1. However, let's continue our study of the word. According to Strong's (one of the references you previously mentioned), "logos" appears 332x in the New Testament of the NASV. It is usually translated as word (179x) or words (61x). Let's note just a few places that logos appears in the New Testament:

Acts 1:1 "The first account [logos] I composed, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach."
In this passage logos is referring to the the Gospel of Luke.

Acts 2:41: "So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and there were added that day about three thousand souls." In this passage logos referred to the words spoken by the apostle Peter.

Acts 19:38: "So then, if Demetrius and the craftsmen who are with him have a complaint [logos] against any man, the courts are in session and proconsuls are available; let them bring charges against one another." In this passage logos referred to the words of Demetrius and the craftsmen.

The conclusion? Obviously, "logos" is not used solely as a reference to Jesus. However, there is an exclusive way in which Jesus is proclaimed to be the "Word" in John 1:1. While there are various thoughts on what this means, I understand it to mean that Jesus is that which the word of God points to.

Many people use Word to reference scripture and it is incorrect. It is not a minor point as anyone outside looking in would see that as elevating the Bible to being equal with God himself and it is not. The Word is Christ and the word of God is scripture. Some denominations do elevate scripture to a level bordering on bibliolatry and we must avoid that at all cost.

2 Timothy 4:2 says (NASV), "Preach the word [logos]; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction." The preaching the word is synonymous with preaching the gospel i.e. Mark 16:15-16.

While you are concerned with "bibliolatry," others are concerned with those who cannot speak as God speaks (1 Pet. 4:11a) and speak without authority (Col. 3:17).

Also the NIV and NASB are more reliable translations than the KJV. They are taken from older texts and with better knowledge of the Greek used in the original texts. The KJV is a good translation but for study I would highly reccomend the more accurate NASB but for preaching I would use the NIV as it is easier to comprehend.

My studies have revealed that the biggest asset of the newer translations is their level of comprehension. For instance, the KJV reads at the 12th grade level, the NASV the 11th, the NKJV the 8.5 level, and the NIV the 7.8 level. I believe that all of these are accurate translations ... although I am somewhat concerned about the NIV's "thought-for-thought" translation process (as contrasted with the translations which try to give us more of a "word-for-word" translation).

Those preaching from the NIV may run into a problem with Acts 8:37. The passage isn't included in the NIV. Thus, we have to decide if the assumption made by those who translated from the "critical text" are strong enough to dismiss this passage. What assumption was made? That the handful of early Greek documents are more accurate, reliable, etc. than the thousands of later documents we have.

 

[seebs]

Even in scripture, as you quoted, word is not capitalized. It is important to understand why. As I pointed out there are people, even here of CF, that elevate scripture to be equal the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and that is heresy. It is a grammatical error to capitalize scripture as it is not a proper noun whereas Bible is a proper noun and should be capitalized. When refering to Christ "Word" is a proper noun but God's word in reference to scripture is not. These simple obervances can insure people do not get the impression that the RM worship scripture in any manner.

Hi! I don't wish to debate here without permission, but I would like to expand on this point, which is near to my heart.

The simple fact is that there are people at CF who make statements such as "the Bible is co-equal with God", or "the Bible is eternal". These people are victims of a misunderstanding with its roots in the casual conflation of the "word of God" and the "Word of God".

The shortcomings of English for expressing the distinction between these concepts are something of a danger, and have led many into error.

As a general rule, I have found that the people who use these words interchangeably are nearly always doing so innocently, well able to distinguish between Jesus and the Bible. However, others reading their words may be confused.

To one of the babes in Christ, still reading the Gospels and coming to know them, imagine the effect of being told these two things:

1. The Bible is the Word of God.
2. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

Can you see how this could mislead someone?

 

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

Hi! I don't wish to debate here without permission, but I would like to expand on this point, which is near to my heart.

The simple fact is that there are people at CF who make statements such as "the Bible is co-equal with God", or "the Bible is eternal". These people are victims of a misunderstanding with its roots in the casual conflation of the "word of God" and the "Word of God".

The shortcomings of English for expressing the distinction between these concepts are something of a danger, and have led many into error.

As a general rule, I have found that the people who use these words interchangeably are nearly always doing so innocently, well able to distinguish between Jesus and the Bible. However, others reading their words may be confused.

To one of the babes in Christ, still reading the Gospels and coming to know them, imagine the effect of being told these two things:

1. The Bible is the Word of God.
2. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

Can you see how this could mislead someone?

I see exaclty how it could mislead. Maybe I fail to explain that and concentrate of the technicalities a little too much but that is exactly what I am getting at in my posts!